Temporary Insurance

[Way2go]

It's not difficult to envisage situations where leaving it parked in front of your house could present a risk to the public. For example, if you live on a hill and a toddler finds his way into the car and causes it to roll down the hill. I know of a case where this happened.

(word edited for clarity )

This is why I said in my post above “when legally parked in a safe on road spot not causing an obstruction to other road users”.
Statutory 3rd Party insurance would be unlikely to cover you for this, as you were not responsible for the eventuality. Unless negligence could be proved against you in any way, I do not see what you could be prosecuted for. After all you did not give permission to this toddler to drive your car or be in it.
Action would need to be taken against the perpetrator of the event or the person responsible for them in the case of this toddler.

I also know of a case where some kids were playing in an unused car and set fire to it. The car next to it also caught fire.

Again, this is an event of someone else’s making for which you are not responsible. Any action would need to be taken against the perpetrators if they are known and proof existed. Your car has no responsibility in the issue.

If a hooligan took a concrete gnome from your front garden and threw it through a neighbour’s window, would you be responsible for the damage because it was your gnome?
If such a case was brought to court it would be laughed out, I’m sure you will agree.

[jeremy]

ellevie - Was that insurance bill ever passed by Parliament? I see its 2004 - so unless it was its well and truly dead by now.

[ellevie]

I find it helpful to consider the whole question from the point of view of the third party. The intention of the Third Party Liabilities part of the Act seems to be to afford protection in the form of insurance to innocent third parties in the event of injury to themselves or their property, irrespective of how the car came to cause the injury.

So if my neighbours gnome decided to take my parked car for a joy-ride and injured a pedestrian then he could claim against my insurance. If I didn't have insurance, then I would fully expect to be prosecuted by the Police for depriving the pedestrian of this protection.

If I were the pedestrian I would then consider bringing a civil case against me for not having insurance, and also against the gnome's owner, and possibly even the gnome himself.

[ellevie]

Jeremy, I have no idea what stage the Bill is at but I see no reason why it should not be enacted, after all who would oppose it ? It seems to have been in operation quite successfully in other European countries for some time. I wouldn't be surprised to see it becoming a standard requirement throughout the EU.

[jeremy]

I'm almost certain it hasn't become law and won't - for the reasons I have stated - that the insurance business is incapable of doing the necessary paperwork promptly.

They will dress it up in other ways and talk about theft of discs and fraud - and that for policies paid by instalments - there would be no way they could retrieve the disc if the premiums were not paid.

[Way2go]

I find it helpful to consider the whole question from the point of view of the third party. The intention of the Third Party Liabilities part of the Act seems to be to afford protection in the form of insurance to innocent third parties in the event of injury to themselves or their property, irrespective of how the car came to cause the injury.

If this was the case you would not, as an "other" driver, need your own additional 3rd Party Insurance.

So if my neighbours gnome decided to take my parked car for a joy-ride and injured a pedestrian then he could claim against my insurance. If I didn't have insurance, then I would fully expect to be prosecuted by the Police for depriving the pedestrian of this protection.

Again the point is missed that the 3rd Party insurance applies to you as a driver and your blameworthy actions so yes, someone could always initiate a claim but you would not be liable and the insurance company would say "not covered under terms & Conditions, no settlement"!

[Kitch]

Well the only simple follow-up I can offer this discussion is that I know somebody who, a few years back, decided to clear his garage out. He pushed his head-less Fiesta RS Turbo out onto the road (taxed and tested but insurance had been transferred to another car) and parked it neatly out of the way directly outside his house he then put a skip (not another RS Turbo) on his drive for one day to clear the garage out.
The next day the police showed up and issued him an N.I.P for having an un-insured vehicle on the public road. He went to court, recieved 6 points and a £100 fine for IN10 (using a motor vehicle without insurance on the public road) and six points.
Due to the fact he was still within his first two years of driving, his licence was revoked and he lost his job (which involved driving a van). He's the only person I know who's been shafted by the fuzz more than me

[Way2go]

The next day the police showed up and issued him an N.I.P for having an un-insured vehicle on the public road. He went to court, recieved 6 points and a £100 fine for IN10 (using a motor vehicle without insurance on the public road) and six points.

Kitch, if the guy was telling you straight then it would seem a travestry of justice even by the legal/insurance guidelines that Jeremy uncovered, ie:

Use, Caue and permit (abbreviated)

-6 Using.—A motor vehicle is "used on a road" where it has been placed on a road, with battery removed, and incapable of being driven (a); but it is otherwise if the vehicle is completely immobilised (b). Similarly, where a vehicle with locked steering and seized up brakes which prevented the wheels turning was towed by being dragged along the road, it was held, on the facts of that case, that as the vehicle was incapable of being controlled because the mechanisms by which a motor car is normally controlled were all inoperative, the vehicle was not "used" on the road

It would definitely seem that the Police and Courts are working to a "whim" and just looking at revenue generation by any means today. The car owner/driver is easy pickings.

As some of these "rules" are tweaked over the years, maybe we are in need an update by one of us asking our MP to obtain a statement of current legislation on the issue from the Ministry of Transport. That is probably the only way to demystify it.

[ellevie]

I wonder how the Police knew he didn't have any insurance.

[Kitch]

They can check if a car is taxed or MOT'd within seconds from the registration number.
The fact they checked in the first place was probably down to some no-life neighbour who thought they'd check with police to see if someone in their road was breaking the law! They probably couldn't sleep at night knowing there was a car outside immobilised that was doing no harm.

[DavidRutherford]

He went to court, received 6 points and a £100 fine for IN10 (using a motor vehicle without insurance on the public road) and six points.

How on earth can that be considered USING a motor vehicle? There's something very wrong about that prosecution: A neighbour of mine once left a car on the road for about 4 months. When I asked him about it, he told me that he'd asked the police what the car needed to have on it for him to leave it on the road. Their response was that "as long as it's taxed, we don't care" So he did just that. The MOT ran out, and it had no insurance, but it did still have tax. Some other local busybody phoned up the police and the local council about it, and neither could care less.

And yes, this was Hampshire Police again.